Re: COVID19 retractions, review & rush to publish: “Perhaps the scholarly publishing sector needs an NTSB-like partner to conduct regular ‘post-mortems’ so that the sector as a whole can learn lessons from each incident(...)” in
From : Publishers "want to be more trusted. This is a formidable challenge in light of some recent failures. To achieve their objectives, [they] need to become more comfortable talking about their mistakes to prove...they are learning from them. "
NEW FROM ME TODAY: This year, scholarly publishers have scaled up and sped up review for COVID-related papers -- but also retracted more than 20 of them. Is the sector learning from these mistakes, fixing process failures, and reestablishing trust?
"To achieve their objectives, publishers need to become more comfortable talking about their mistakes to prove convincingly that they are learning from them." -
Publishers want to reestablish trust among their stakeholders. This year, they have retracted more than 20 COVID-related papers. Are they learning from their mistakes and fixing process failures? via
Publishers want to reestablish trust among their stakeholders: This year, they have retracted more than 20 COVID-related papers. Are they learning from their mistakes and fixing process failures? via
Publishers want to reestablish trust among their stakeholders: This year, they have retracted more than 20 COVID-related papers. Are they learning from their mistakes and fixing process failures? via
Appreciate selfishly the effort to further contextualize and develop my thinking about the need for an NTSB-like entity to help publishers learn from quality mistakes and avoid repeating them.
Publishers want to reestablish trust among their stakeholders. This year, they have retracted more than 20 COVID-related papers. Are they learning from their mistakes and fixing process failures?